Correct in regards to ISO being the standards I'm using.
RFS isn't a boundary as you said, but rather is the default condition of a tolerance unless specified otherwise (M or L modifiers) in the tolerance frame.
The envelope boundary in ISO is akin to rule #1 in ASME. The way I visualize it...
One more additional question to the top scenario...
A lot other examples I see have datum B to the one control lacking it; how does this change or add anything different that already isn't being controlled with C & A?
I can't see that theoretically serving any purpose as the median line in the...
Cannot seem to find any example from my references to enforce my theory on this so looking for clarification here.
Have a hole say 5mm, tolerance of +/- 0.2, position tolerance of 0.05 applied controlling it with respect to 3 datums A, B & C using basic dimensions.
From what I understand...
No, what you stated makes perfect sense.
I understand the sequence of datums, just had my mind in overdrive and overlooked that very point you made
It's one of those scenarios where your subconscious knows the answer yet can't bring it out.
Thanks for that viewpoint.
The question I have is regarding the datum setup and the interpretation of tolerance zones established by them for bi-directional position tolerance frame setup. Attached is the illustrations from ISO 1101:2004 version of standards. ASME seems to have the same interpretation in regards to...
Sorry if the original post was confusing.
The ISO envelope requirement (invoking the envelope boundary) for my company is called out on all drawings, hence why I stated "when used as default."
According to Alex's reference book, when using straightness on a feature of size (FOS) he states...
I've read in to the past week about the envelope boundary application when used as default for a drawing. I have multiple resources for placing together as much as possible for different scenarios other than ISO standards (1101). Right now I use mainly Alex Krulikowski's ISO Geometrical...
